Last-Modified: 1997/01/25
Tel Aviv University / Faculty of Humanities
Project for the Study of Anti-Semitism and the Yolanthe and
Frederik Th. Roeters Van-Lennep Database of Contemporary
Anti-Semitism.
The "Rudolf Report" - A "Scientific Landslide"?
-----------------------------------------------
Sarah Rembiszewski
The following is an attempt to introduce the latest
"scientific" fabrication of a German Holocaust revisionist.
The document was produced by Germar Rudolf who seeks to refute
the existence of the German death machinery at
Auschwitz/Birkenau. Among other things, he tries to establish
by "arithmetical simulation", to what extent human sweat -
caused by fear of death inside the gas chambers - influenced
the speed of the chemical reaction of Zyklon B.
The full title of the "Rudolf Gutachten", or the "Rudolf
Report" is
_Expert Report on the Formation and Detection of Cyanide
Compounds in the "Gas Chambers" of Auschwitz_ (org.:
_Gutachten ueber die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit von
Cyanidverbindungen in den "Gaskammern" von Auschwitz_). The
edition we are referring to is the third one, corrected and
completed in November 1992, by the author who is also the
owner of the rights.
The "Rudolf Report" was commissioned by Otto-Ernst Remer, a
notorious Holocaust denier, through one of his lawyers, Hajo
Hermann (Luftwaffen Colonel, decorated during WWII), himself a
known Holocaust revisionist.
We became aware of the "Gutachten" when we noticed, while
studying the publications of the international neo-Nazi scene
- the insistent publicity campaign made for the so-called
"expert report" of a German scientist. Here are a few
examples:
- The neo-Nazi bulletin of the New European Order (NEO), the
Swiss "Courrier du Continent", (August 1993) describes the
document in terms of a "scientific landslide".
- The "Journal of Historical Review", enumerates Rudolf
together with the "path-breaking" Fred Leuchter and Walter
Lueftl.
In its November/December edition of 1993, the "Rudolf Report"
is called "Germany's Leuchter Report". According to the
"Journal of Historical Review", the "Rudolf Gutachten" is
available for DM 46 from Cromwell Press, London.
-The "IHR News Letter" (July 1992) cites the "Rudolf
Expertise" which "provides still more authoritative
confirmation of the 1988 findings of American gas chamber
expert Fred Leuchter."
-Even an obscure Arab fundamentalist publication of a certain
"Dar Yassin" publishing house in London, underlines the
importance of the "Rudolf Gutachten" which is distributed in
German by the Cromwell Press, London (July 1993).
-The "Nouvelle Vision" (July 1993) is very much surprised by
the silence which surrounds the "Rapport Rudolf",
notwithstanding the fact that the first edition of the report
was sent to important personalities in public life, including
Chancellor Helmut Kohl. Even the second, very "elegant"
edition, published in April 1993 and sent to 1400 addresses,
failed to provoke any reaction, according to "Nouvelle Vision".
-"Notre Europe - Combattante" (September 1993) introduces the
"Rapport Rudolf" as a major proof of the revisionist thesis
which can be ordered from Germar Rudolf at his personal
address in Stuttgart.
-"Kritik" (No. 84, November 1993) recommends the purely
"scientific document" of Germar Rudolf, which can be ordered
from Cromwell Press, London.
The respected scientist, siding with Holocaust
revisionism, becomes a "figurehead" of the neo-Nazi scene.
After the report's completion, it was submitted to at least
two courts as an expert testimony, to prove the non-existence
of gas chambers in Auschwitz/Birkenau.
The judges at the David Irving trial in Munich, May 1992, as
well as those of Otto-Ernst Remer in Schweinfurt, October
1992, declined Rudolf the right to serve as an expert witness,
as both courts considered the existence of gas chambers in the
death camps unquestionable.
It seems worthwhile mentioning that the judges who have to
deal with the offensive behavior of Holocaust deniers, are
sometims unsure and irritated. A court in Vienna, that had to
pass judgement on Gerd Honsik, (neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier)
commissioned an expert opinion by the Austrian professor Gerd
Jagschitz, who finally came to the conclusion that there could
be no doubt that Jews were mass-murdered by Zyklon B... On May
5th, 1992, Gerd Honsik was sentenced to one and a half years
and ten days in prison.
The "Rudolf-Report" is not a new phenomenon. It was the French
Holocaust denier, Robert Faurisson, who had the idea of
commissioning an expert report which could be used as a legal
document in court, for the defense of those accused of
Holocaust denial... These "expert documents" were specially
fabricated for use in court (although their propaganda value,
when distributed amongst "important" personalities and members
of the right-wing scene cannot be underestimated),
commissioned by the lawyers of the accused and probably
financed by all those "concerned". Usually the same
"expertise" is used in more than one law suit.
_But why should an experienced and successful chemist
like Rudolf, get invovled in Holocaust revisionismt,
risking his career and reputation?
It seems obvious that the payment he received must have been
considerable, as the financiers of these "reports" are usually
very generous. Fred Leuchter - whom Rudolf cites very often
throughout his analyses - had been hired by the lawyers of
Ernst Zundel (Canadian Holocaust denier). In February 1988,
Leuchter was paid $37,000.- (at least), for a document which
"proved" that carbon-monoxide gas had never been used for
killing human beings inside gas vans. (These allegations are
widely spread by extremists of the whole spectrum of the
right-wing scene in Germany. One cannot but wonder whether
these appearances are indirectly encouraged by the
"Schlussstrichmentalitaet"* of certain government circles.)
Remer understood the importance of delegating the "report" to
a serious scientist, associated with a famous institution.
Although the impact Fred Leuchter's study had on the
right-wing scene was significant, the fact that the latter was
an imposter, having had no scientific education whatsoever,
could not be hidden from the public. Contrary to Leuchter,
Rudolf was a real "showpiece".
To underline the respectability of the "Rudolf Gutachten", the
author refers to such celebreties as Prof. Ernst Nolte, of the
Freie Universitaet Berlin.
In the past, Prof. Nolte (a central figure in the "Historikerstreit")
had taken an ambiguous position towards the subject of
Holocaust revisionism. Although he rejected the scientific
value of an expertise like the "Leuchter-Report" as a means of
persuasion, he still considered it to be a "stimulation for
further research" and believed that "if revisionism and with
it the "Leuchter Report" were able to explain to the general
public that Auschwitz too has to be a subject of scientific
research and controversy, one should give them due credit."
(Feb. 1990, in "Junge Freiheit"). Prof. Nolte implies that
'Auschwitz' can be compared with other historical events (like
the "stalinistischen Saeuberungen") and has to be studied in
the context of historical relativity.
The conceptualizaton of the Holocaust provokes discussions in
the style of those inspired by Mark Weber (famous American
Holocaust revisionist) titled: "The Holocaust - Let's Hear
Both Sides"; the same idea is behind the thoughts of Bradley
R. Smith in "The Holocaust Controversy. The Case of an Open
Debate". (A "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust"
(CODOH) was founded in 1987 by Bradley R. Smith.).
The ultimate aim of these discussions is of course the denial
of the Holocaust and the rehabilitation of the German nation,
which would finally lead to the rehabilitation of National
Socialism.
"Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus" (False in one thing, flase
in everything) is a saying chosen by Bradley Smith for the
title of an article, subtitled: "`The Human Soap' - Holocaust Myth"
(IHR Newsletter, May 1992). The above proverb illustrates the
latest tactics of Holocaust revisionism. Once the negationist
can "scientifically" deny the existence of gas chambers in
Nazi concentration camps, he has no difficulties in denying
the Holocaust as a whole. This strategy, presented by
Otto-Ernst Remer in the appendix of the "Rudolf-Report", works
as follows:
As everyone knows, nobody ever pretended that 6 million Jews
had been killed in gas chambers. The number describes the
total sum of those being murdered as Jews, whether in the gas
chambers of the concentration camps or elsewhere. But the
tactics of the deniers consists of deliberately misusing this
number. They argue consequently: if it can be proven, that 6
million were not gassed, then the first exaggeration has been
found. The next step consists of using authentic, as well as
false references and in impressing the public, by citing
"authorities" like Germar Rudolf.
The danger of these philosophical concepts is obvious.
Encouraging a debate on Holocaust revisionism attributes, -
due to the nature of a debate, - a legal aspect to both sides
concerned. "Discussing" the Holocaust, would finally encourage
Holocaust deniers (and other perverts) and be an insult to the
memory of millions of Jews, killed by torture, gas or hunger
during the Nazi regime.
The Layout of the "Rudolf Gutachten".
When we first received the present 3rd edition of Germar
Rudolf's assessment, we were surprised by its expensive
layout. 119 pages of A-4 size high-gloss paper, coloured
photos to demonstrate the findings, professional graphs and
tabulations, detailed references, and of course a long list of
"Danksagungen" (notes of thanks). But reading the first few
sentences - (without referring to Otto-Ernst Remer's plea on
the inside cover-page, asking his readers to contribute to the
financing of his defence proceedings in court) - we realized
that the "attractive" blue colour of the cover was in fact
exactly the same as that on the walls of the gas chambers and
"delousing" rooms, left by the traces of the Zyklon B gas.
These marks and their intensity was one of the main objects of
the "investigation". (Consequently, the report is referred to
as "das Blaubuch" ("the blue book") by followers of the German
Holocaust revisionist..)
We do not intend to elaborate on the specific falsehoods in
Rudolf's report, as its absurd allegations are evidence
enough. The language and reasoning explain why Rudolf was
chosen by Reme to fabricate the "expert report." There is
something chilling about this man, whose language does not
even purport to be that of a disinterested scientist, but
reveals his offending ideas which are clearly those of a
Holocaust denier.
The hypocrisy of the author can hardly be surpassed, as is
shown by the choice of the coloured photos, which frequently
show a young man (according to the "Journal of Historical
Review" of November/December 1993, p.26, the author himself is
shown on the photos) inside or outside the gas chambers of
Auschwitz/Birkenau taking samples of the traces left by Zyklon
B.
Page 88 of the "document" shows Germar Rudolf, pointing to the
blue colour on the walls, left by the murderous gas -
"innocently" holding a bag in his hand, with the inscription:
"environmentalist"....
The "Proofs".
The style, expression, and "scientific" conclusions of the
"report" are surely those of a racist and anti-Semite, who
does not leave out any of the arguments of the "typical"
Holocaust denier. Following are some examples to illustrate
this assumption:
-Basing much of his argument on the "findings" of the
discredited American revisionist Fred Leuchter, Rudolf is
primarily concerned with proving that there were no gas
chambers in Auschwitz/Birkenau, as the samples of the
delousing facilities showed high contents of HCN (Zyklon B)
while the "alleged" gas chambers showed either no traces of
cyanide or an extremely low level.
-Rudolf calls the death camps of Auschwitz/Birkenau, 'P.O.W.'
camps.
-The term 'gas chamber' is either put in quotation marks
("Gaskammern") or referred to as "so-called gas chambers". On
page 32 the author states the 'gas chamber' was a common name
used for "delousing chambers".
-"The people arriving from hygienically backward Eastern
Europe" Rudolf instructs his readers, "brought serious health
problems with them into the camps as these people were mostly
lice-ridden..and lice are the main carriers of the typhoid
agent." This explains the need for delousing the prisoners by
the "common" insecticide Zyklon B.
The author continues the manipulation of facts in support of
his falsifications, coming up with a monstrous lie to justify
"a certain" number of deaths in Auschwitz/Birkenau: "According
to the official death-books, old age was the number one cause
of death among the Jews" and "the typhoid epidemics were the
second most frequent cause of death.." (It is a fact, that the
very first victims of the Nazis in Auschwitz/Birkenau in
December 1941 were terminal patients and prisoners of war, but
this is true only for the time before the construction of the
ovens in 1942-43, when more than 800,000 Jews were murdered in
the gas chambers). Germar Rudolf claims that the Jews, because
of their "low hygienic standards", brought with them the seed
of their death. And although the Germans tried their best to
improve the health of the Jewish inmates (by delousing and
medical care....) the prisoners died (if they died) either of
natural causes (old age) or of illness. According to Rudolf,
the Germans, like the camp commander Hoess, were very cautious
with regard to the inmates (p.16).
To prove the non-existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz/Birkenau,
the author uses a remarkable cold-blooder and arrogant argument:
The efficiency and intelligence of the Germans.
Here are some examples of Rudolf's argumentation:
-The fact that cyanide was found in the hair (of the victims)
is no proof of human gassing, as it would be "easier and more
useful to cut the clean hair of the people before the killing".
(p.15, footnote 3)
-Trying to reject a description of the working of Crematory II
by an expert-witness (J.C. Pressac), Rudolf considers it as
"unbelievable" that the Germans could have planned it (the
crematory) in such an "amateurish" way. (p.26)
-Claiming that the burning of human beings could not have
taken place, the "expert" states categorically: "No
intelligent (???) person could have the idea of buring people
in graves without introducing fresh air.. The first thing that
the SS-men had to learn during their para-military education
was...." (p.35)
According to Rudolf this unprofessional planning was not
worthy of a German SS-man and consequently it (the buring of
the corpses after the gassing) could not have taken place.
-"Every practical human being" would "know how to burn corpses
in the open air" (p.36). And here the scientist offers another
aspect of his ideology when he details the damage caused by
the "terrorist" attack on Dresden, February 13/14 1945.
-The death machinery of the Nazis worked too slowly (p.31) and
was too costly (p.97) to be of "German" planning.
The gassing of the Jewish inmates in Auschwitz, the most
efficient death-machinery in the history of mankind, did not
show the German "precision work". Was the gassing and disposal
of Jewish bodies at Auschwitz/Birkenau not efficient enough? 4
crematoria with a capacity of 4,456 corpses a day were in use
from March 22 until June 28 1943. (Prof. W. Benz concludes in
"Legenden Luegen Vorurteile" that until November 1944, almost
one million Jews were gassed in Auschwitz/Birkenau).
The scientist tries to confuse his readers (as most Holocaust
deniers do) by comparing the techniques used by the operators
of the crematoria in Auschwitz/Birkenau with those of the
"civilised" world outside the death camp.
Outside Auschwitz/Birkenau, there existed, of course, a normal
world, where precise instructions concerning the technical
performance of the work of the crematoria were followed. But
these were not taken into account inside the death camps where
the burning of corpses presented only a problem of "quantity".
The reasoning concerning the "safety provisions" of those
working in the gas chambers and crematoria is presented in the
same manipulative way. Describing the work of the Jewish
inmates of the Sonderkommando, Rudolf cynically suggests that
the testimonies of the surivors concerning this work were
lies, as the "impossible working conditions" (p.75) could have
been a danger to their health - as they had neither "gas
masks" nor, "protective clothing"...
It is frightening that the author dares to persuade his
audience of the "humane treatment" the Sonderkommandos in
Auschwitz/Birkenau would have received (if they had existed..)
from their German guards to protect their health. Adopting the
strategy of most Holocaust deniers, Rudolf does not reject the
use of Zyclon B in Auschwitz/Birkenau altogether. According to
him it was only used to prevent the spreading of epidemics and
as a means of hygiene (p.58).
(During WWII, the murderous gas Zyklon B was licensed to the
"Degesch"-company. Successors to "Degesch" is the
"Detia-Freyberg" GmbH in Laudenbach, Germany. As the firm is
mentioned by Rudolf as a source of information on Zyklon B, we
contacted the "Detia-Freyberg" and asked about their
relationship with Germar Rudolf and/or Otto-Ernst Remer. They
denied having had any contact with either of them.)
Although the "Rudolf-Report" has been rejected as a legal
document whenever presented in court, financing this costly
document must have seemed worthwhile to its publishers. The
fact is, that it is widely distributed and used by Holocaust
deniers to "prove" the non existence of gas chambers at
Auschwitz/Birkenau.
As the examples have shown, Rudolf is not afraid to prove
himself openly to be a Holocaust denier, even at the risk of
being brought to court. In June 1985 the West German Bundestag
modified its penal code in order to allow action to be taken
against the denial of NS-crimes as well as the
"Auschwitz-lie", under Paragraph 194 of the Criminal Code.
The long list of lawyers which is added with appreciation to
the "Report", clearly illustrates the kind of legal advice
Rudolf can count on, should he need it.
But for the time being he does not consider himself in any
kind of danger. He even had the impertinence to offer his
"professional services" (together with those of Walter Lueftl)
to Prof. Jagschitz "free of charge" during the Honsik trial in
Vienna 1992 (p. 106, footnote no. 59). At that time Rudolf was
related to Leuftl, president of the Austrian Engineers' and
Architects' Association, who had conducted a "study" to prove
tha the Holocaust could not have happened. Leuftl conducted
his study at the request of a German lawyer and published his
conclusions in the Viennese paper "Die Presse" under the
title: "Holocaust - Belief and Facts". (Sueddeutsche Zeitung,
No. 62, 15.3.1992) Lueftl was forced to resign.
The 'notes of thanks' at the end of the report are of special
interest to the attentive reader.
-The institutions mentioned as having given some kind of
service or advice to the author do deny any contact with
Germar Rudolf or Otto-Ernst Remer.
-The lawyers listed by the author are all well known neo-nazi
advocates, functioning in the defence of Holocaust deniers and
militant neo-Nazis.
-From the list of "intelligentsia", we already referred to
Prof. E. Nolte, whom Rudolf names together with Prof. W.G.
Haverbeck, priest and right-wing philosopher; Prof. H. Diwald,
author of "Deutschland einig Vaterland" and cited on the
back-cover of Rudolf's report; Prof. E. Schlee, district
leader of the "Republikaner" in Schleswig-Holstein. Prof.
Schlee is cited as having written a letter to Rudolf, "hoping
that his work will achieve the breakthrough" ('Report
Baden-Baden', ARD,) and Dr. Zitelmann, author of the book
"Hitler. Selbstverstaendnis eines Revolutionaers" (Hitler,
Self-Portrait of a Revolutionary).
Special mention is reserved for Herr Dipl.-Ing.h.c.W.Lueftl
for his contribution to the work of Germar Rudolf. As we have
seen above, Lueftl had to quit his work (president of the
Austrian Engineers' and Architects' Federation) following the
publication of his report denying the Holocaust.
---------------
The chemist Germar Rudolf (28) was a graduate student,
studying for a doctorate at the famous German institute of
sciences, the Max-Planck-Institute in Stuttgart. After
querying the Max-Planck-Institute (Minerva Foundation) we
learnt that although they had known about the publication of
the "Rudolf Report" from early 1992, Rudolf was able ro finish
his work with his supervisor Prof. von Schnering.
According to the Institute's press release (25th May 1993),
Prof. von Schnering had told his student "not to engage in
further activities in this matter." This seemed rather
surprising, as we had expected at least a public condemnation
of Rudolf's involvement in Holocaust revisionism by the very
respected and renowned Max-Planck-Institute.
Holocaust denial, or as it is known to German lawyers: "The
Auschwitz Lie", is a punishable offence under the German Penal
Code (Strafgestzbuch), when it is told in public. The denial
of the Holocaust is considered by paragraph 185 of the Penal
Code as an "insult to the survivors of the Holocaust". As such
it can only be prosecuted upon the filing of charges.
Paragraph 194 states, however, that "The Auschwitz Lie" can be
prosecuted by the authorities (ex officio) when it was
committed publicly, i.e. by propagation in print, in a public
gathering and by electronic media.
Referring to the fact that Holocaust denial is only punishable
when propagated in public, we understand the insistence of the
official press release of the Max-Planck-Institute on the fact
that Mr. Germar Rudolf intended his "Gutachten" to serve as an
expert report only in court and that he did not "allow" it to
be published. But as we have shown before, the "Rudolf
Gutachten" is sold in public (DM46.-), propagated by its
distributors as the latest "scientific proof of the
non-existence of the gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau it can
be ordered through Cromwell Press or from Germar Rudolf
personally. A slightly altered version of the report has been
published by the Grabert Publishing House in Thubingen,
Germany, entitled "Vorlesungen Ueber Zeitgeschichte" (Lectures
on Contemporary History). The name, Dr. Ernst Gaus, who signs
as the author, seems to be a pseudonym for Germar Rudolf.
Paragraph 86 of the Legal Code makes the distribution,
production and storing of propaganda-means of unconstitutional
organizations punishable. But, if the means of propaganda
server certain purposes, such as political education, or
artistic and scientific(!) ogals... they are not punishable by
law.
A criminal investigation was launched by the procurator's
office of Mannheim against Fred Leuchter, the notorious
American who claims to have chemical evidence that no gas was
used in Auschwitz. It seems important to mention the fact that
the "Rudolf Report" openly propagates the forbidden
"Leuchter-video", giving the exact distribution address
(p.114).
Revealing the existence of a German Holocaust denier - a young
scientist, working for a famous institute of science - to the
general public, seems to us an urgent necessity in view of the
increasing number of publications by so-called experts,
perverting science in the name of a terrifying manipulation of
history.
---------------
The following additional information reached us on completion
of the above study in January 1994.
After having completed his written doctorate thesis at the
'Max Planck Institute fuer Festkoerperforschung in Stuttgart'
Germar Rudolf was dismissed on June 7th., 1993. According to
the 'Minerva Stiftung' (Max-Planck Gesellschaft zur Foerderung
der Wissenschaften) Rudolf has initiated a process "for the
protection against wrongful dismissal." The outcome of these
legal proceedings is still unknown. (Telefax from the Minerva
Stiftung of February 8th, 1994). The lawyer, who is defending
Rudolf, is the same Dr. G. Herzogenrath-Amelung who figures
together with other known right-wing jurists as legal advisers
in the report. Herr Rudolf presented his doctoral thesis in
June 1993 at the University of Stuttgart. The latter has not
yet decided whether to accept Rudolf's thesis.
Two weeks (!) before his dismissal, on May 25th 1993, the
'Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der Wissenschaften
E.V.' published a press-release (as a response to the
distribution of the 'Rudolf Gutachten' to several hundred
personalities in Germany) stating that Germar Rudolf is a
graduate student at the 'Max-Planck-Institut fuer
Festkoerperforschung in Stuttgart', who has been working for
the last years on a report on the "formation and detection of
cyanide compounds in the 'gas chambers' of Auschwitz",
destined for the defence of Otto-Ernst Remer in court.
According to the press-release, Rudolf stole the official
papers of the Max-Planck-Institut Stuttgart to order the
analyses of the gas chamber samples at the Fresenius Institut.
As this "private" occupation had nothing to do with his work
at the MPI (Max-Planck-Institut), the institution did not see
any reason to dismiss Rudolf at this date (25 May 1993), but
after the 'Rudolf Report' had appeared in public, the members
of the MPG distanced themselves from the report.
On February 16th, 1994 we received a copy of a statement
signed by Prof. A. Simon, director of the Max-Planck-Institut
fuer Festkoerperforschung, Stuttgart, which was published in
June 1993, (the day of Rudolf's official dismissal). The
statement, addressed to the members of the Institute,
expressed consternation over the fact that a member of the MPG
was involved in "speculations about the number of those
murdered during the 3rd. Reich". Prof. Simon explained that,
as the study of Rudolf concerning the material samples of
Auschwitz were of a "private nature," he does not see any
reason to deal with its statements.
As a result of the absence of any public response to the
distribution of the report, stickers with the inscription "Es
gab keine Gaskammern, das bestaetigt auch die
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft", ("There were no gas chambers at
Auschwitz. This is confirmed by the Max-Planck-Society") were
found all over.
In order to receive some relevant informaiton about the
analysis of the material which seemed to be the main object of
Rudolf's study, we turned to the Institut Fresenius in
Taunusstein and to the Degussa AG in Frankfurt, both referred
to by Germar Rudolf.
Fresenius is widely propagated by the distributors of the
"Rudolf-Report". (The "Remer-Depesche" of June 1992 even shows
an impressive photo of the Fresenius building on its first
page..) The tabulations reproduced by Germar Rudolf are
described as: "Cyanide concentrations in the walls of 'gas
chambers'/delousing chambers. After Germar Rudolf/Institut
Fresenius, Taunusstein, Hessen, Deutschland."
On February 17th., 1994, we received a letter from Prof.
Wilhelm Fresenius, asking for our understanding that he is not
in the position to give us any information about the analysed
materials, as these belong to the client, which in this case
is the "Max-Planck-Institut fuer Festkoerperforschung in
Stuttgart". We further received a copy of a press release of
the Fresenius Institut, dated May, 1993, commenting on the
Remer leaflets and the "Rudolf Report."
After a meeting with the representative of the Degussa AG in
Israel, and an extensive correspondence with the Degussa AG,
Frankfurt, the latter informed us (on April 7, 1994) that they
pressed charges against Germar Rudolf for slandering,
defamation of character and fraud. According to the Degussa
AG, legal steps against Rudolf are also taken by the Fresneius
Institut and the public prosecutor's office of Stuttgart.
Germar Rudolf is charged with fraud and slandering by for his
real crime, the denial of the gas chambers in Auschwitz, he
has not yet been indicted.
Tel-Aviv, April 1994
* describes the general atmosphere of putting a "final stroke"
to the German past, including the Holocaust.
---
03-640-8383. Wiener Library, University Campus, POB 39040,
Ramat Aviv, Telaviv 69978, Israel. Tel. 972-3-640-8779. Tel.
and fax 972-3-640-8383.

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.